Hunter v. New York City Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hunter v. New York City Board of Education

190 A.D.2d 851, 594 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1575

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 22, 1993·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Board of Education, dated April 18, 1990, which declined to accept the findings and recommendations of an Administrative Law Judge and instead found the petitioner guilty of excessive absenteeism and imposed upon him a penalty of 30-days suspension without pay.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed, on the merits, with costs.

We find that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s finding of fact that the petitioner, who was absent from work on 30 occasions between July 25, 1988, [852] and July 11, 1989, was guilty of excessive absenteeism (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 231; Matter of Moorehead v New York City Tr. Auth., 147 AD2d 569). We note that the petitioner’s absences, eight of which occurred on Mondays, and for some of which the petitioner provided questionable explanations, occurred even after the petitioner had been warned several times by his supervisor that his poor attendance was adversely affecting the operation of his office. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Board of Education, dated April 18, 1990, which declined to accept the findings and recommendations of an Administrative Law Judge and instead found the petitioner guilty of excessive absenteeism and imposed upon him a penalty of 30-days suspension without pay.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed, on the merits, with costs.

We find that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s finding of fact that the petitioner, who was absent from work on 30 occasions between July 25, 1988, [852] and July 11, 1989, was guilty of excessive absenteeism (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 231; Matter of Moorehead v New York City Tr. Auth., 147 AD2d 569). We note that the petitioner’s absences, eight of which occurred on Mondays, and for some of which the petitioner provided questionable explanations, occurred even after the petitioner had been warned several times by his supervisor that his poor attendance was adversely affecting the operation of his office. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Hunter v. New York City Board of Education, 190 A.D.2d 851, 594 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1575 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

190 A.D.2d 851 (Hunter v. New York City Board of Education) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related